Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy

Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy edit

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 4.5 support, 0 oppose. I don't know how to count Croat Canuck's comment. It's endorsing the promotion. Otherwise, as this is unopposed, I've self-closed. Scorpion's done once before, should be a problem Promote. Maxim_(talk) 21:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is modelled after the Hart Memorial Trophy, which is a recently listed FL, however with a few content-type (section which describes why it was awarded to the player, which often mentioned) and style differences(Gallery is at the bottom instead on the right-hand column). The page is fully referenced. Any concerns that are brought up will be addressed. Maxim_(talk) 16:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text of previous comments

Weak Oppose - I had the following questions/concerns:
- I think it would be best to remove the gallery and place all the images in the right column. Galleries are generally frowned upon at WP:GA and WP:FA, so I don't see why they should be accepted here. In this case, there is no need for the gallery.
  - ~~It didn't fit well on the right with the notes.~~
    - I don't understand the rationale behind this argument. I made an edit preview], and it seemed fine to me to have each image at 200px, aligned right. For galleries, if it is possible to move the images into prose (or in this case, on the side of a lsit), then it should be done. There is no reason why these images could not fit in well next to the list, so you should remove the gallery. Raime 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
- Some the "Notes" seem border-line irrelevant: "Made the NHL despite his small size", "While Bobby Orr led the headlines, Brad Park led a quiet career that eventually landed him in the Hockey Hall of Fame", " he would play only 16 more games after being awarded", "as he was traded around the league". While they are interesting trivia pieces, they don't really have to do with the players directly winning the trophy (or at least it does not seem so in present context), and therefore should be removed or reworded.
  - I intended that they do, as there is usually a strong reason as to why it was awarded (just look at the sources; I only knew the very recent winners' ailments, and Mario's.
    - But take this comment, for example: While Bobby Orr led the headlines, Brad Park led a quiet career that eventually landed him in the Hockey Hall of Fame. It was presented for his dedication. What does him leading a "quiet career" have to do with him winning a trophy? It seems that the only relevant note here is presented for his dedication, as that is specifically why he won the award. It dosn't really amtter if the extra information is found in the references; all that is needed is why they won, and nothing else. And as long as that specific why is anserwed in the references (For Brad Park, it is: was selected as the MASTERTON TROPHY winner for 1983-84, commemorating an exceptional career of dedication to the game of hockey.) The same goes for he would play only 16 more games after being awarded; this is interesting trivia, and is noted in the ref, but has nothing to do with the player actually winning the trophy. It seems that each reference has a single sentence that summarizes why each player won (i.e. for his perseverance and dedication to hockey, for his dedication to hockey, For his lifelong dedication to strong, clean hockey), and that is all that should be included (For most part, this is already the case; only a few entries need reviewing). Raime 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a better term than "Notes" can be used?
- ~~I don't really think use of small font in the "Notes" section is necessary, as most entries aren't extremely long, and do not warrant it.~~ Done
  - ~~Then it requires a gallery at the bottom.~~
    - Why is that? Yes, it will be slightly more "cramped", but this is not really an issue. See the List of tallest buildings in Providence FL, which has 200px images, and a "Notes" section that has similarly-lengthed entries that use regular font. I made an edit preview with each image moved and the entires put in regular font, and everything seemed fine. Raime 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Fixed. Raime 16:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Some pieces of information need to be explained further or removed: "After "denouncing" his team" - why is denouncing in quotation marks?~~ Done
  - Part of a quotation, but I've removed it.
- I'm a little confused by this entry - The first international player to receive it, Anders Hedberg was recognized for a dedicated career, and not for one season. What does "not for one season" mean? Is this a typo, or is it a hyped-up way of saying "he played for more than one season"? If it is the latter, it needs to be rephrased. Done
  - First player not from Canada (or North America) to recieve it. I've reworded it.
    - Is that (his place of birth) really relevant to him winning the trophy? Raime 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- During his playing career, Masterton exhibited the qualities for which the trophy is dedicated - This sounds like POV to me. Stating that he demostrated "the qualities of perseverance, sportsmanship, and dedication to ice hockey" is an opinion, not a fact.
  - This comes directly from the NHL; I've seen the phrase before, and I've found sources. Should I still remove it, or what according to you is the best course of action.
    - I would say use a quote from the NHL. This , in its current state, is not encyclopedic, but rather an opinion. However, if changed to quote format, then it would staisfy encyclopedia standards. Raime 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the nature of the award, no player has ever won it more than once seems redundant, after you have already stated in the lead that A player can win this trophy only once in his career.
- Reference #1 (Dinger, p.201) needs to be cited using cite book format.
  - It's related to the reference at the bottom. I think there's a template for that use. I'll add it.
    - In that case, the "References" section needs to be moved above the "Notes" section. Raime 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason why Reference #30 (Gary R. Roberts. Legends of Hockey. Retrieved on 2007-08-21) is not cited using the [Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy Winner: NAME. Legends of Hockey. Retrieved on DATE.] layout, as all other references are?
  - ~~Yes. It's a different page series. It's Roberts' full Legends of Hockey biography, not a short blurb that exists for every winner of the trophy.~~
    - ~~My mistake. Raime 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)~~ Done[reply]
Overall, my concerns are fairly minor. I will re-assess my opinion after the concerns are met and/or explained. Raime 05:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment - You should remove the wikilinks to the hockey players' and NHL seasons' Wikipedia articles that are found in the image captions. This is overlinking, as they are already clearly linked in the list. Raime 15:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have a few more concerns:
    - Had his best year on a poor team - completely POV. "Best year" and "Poor team" are opinions. Needs to be reworded. Done Raime 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - leading his team from the shadows of the superstars - Can't this be rephrased? I know it is a direct quote, but is poorly written and confusing.
    - Chicago responded with a first place - Not sure if personification of a team is appropriate here. Rewording it would help. Done Raime 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Awarded after he beat Garry Unger's record for consecutive games played (914 games). He would later take the record to 964 games - What does him taking the record further have to do with him winning the award? That should be removed. Also, "914 games" should be merged into prose, not left in parentheses.
    - Consistency - Some entries have punctuation, others do not. Ether use periods throughout, or not at all.
    - Consistency with other trophy lists - I think you should use:
      - Player is still active
        rather than {| class="wikitable" !style="background-color: #CFECEC;" |Still active |} to remain consistent with similar trophy lists.
    - Raime 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, hopefuly, these will be my final, nit-picky comments. Some have already mentioned, but have relisted them here for oragnizational purposes:
- Pit Martin - I would recommend finding a better word than "responded"
- Henri Richard - he would play only 16 more games after being awarded - What does this have to do with him winning the award? I would suggest removal.
- Ed Westfall - Awarded for "leading teams in the shadows of superstars" - What does this mean? I know it is a quote, but things like this can get confusing to readers, and should be reworded.
- Butch Goring - Made the NHL despite his small size; not sure if this is relevant, but a reowrd would be good. Perhaps stature would be more appropriate than size. But what does his small size have to do with him winning an award?
- Glenn Resch - gave his young team more confidence while he was in the nets' Does this just mean he was goaltender? This seemed like hyped-up language to me.
- Lanny McDonald - as he was traded around the league - Is this relevant?
- Brad Park - in the statistical shadow of Bobby Orr - Is this relevant? Why is it mentioned?
- Anders Hedberg - The first player raised outside of North America to win it - What does this have to do with winning the award?
- Doug Jarvis - He would later take the record to 964 games - Not relevant to winning the award. Also, merge (914 games) into prose.
- Gary Roberts - Successfully from possibly career-ending surgery to correct bone spurs and nerve damage - I presume this is a typo?
- Steve Yzerman - attempted to play during 2002-03 NHL season - Inconclusive: Did he or did he not play?
Raime 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are the concerns I amassed. I'm sorry if I'm being nit-picky. :)

- ~~Pit Martin - I would recommend finding a better word than "responded"~~
- ~~Glenn Resch - gave his young team more confidence while he was in the nets' Does this just mean he was goaltender? This seemed like hyped-up language to me.~~
- Lanny McDonald - as he was traded around the league - Is this relevant?
  - The constant changing of teams affects a players ability to play with a team, and to feel part of a team.
    - Well, this definitely seems like a POV, but I can see what you mean. I would suggest just rewording the section: "Presented for his dedication, as he was traded around the league numerous times, and when he came to the Flames, he had 66 goals and 32 assists for 98 points" is too jumbled. Raime 01:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Brad Park - in the statistical shadow of Bobby Orr - Is this relevant? Why is it mentioned?~~
- ~~Steve Yzerman - attempted to play during 2002-03 NHL season - Inconclusive: Did he or did he not play?~~ All Done as prescribed except for L. MacDonald.
Raime 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here are my comments from previous edits that still have not been addressed
- ~~Is there a better term than "Notes" that can be used as the column title? Perhaps "Reasons for winning" or something along those lines?~~ Done
- During his playing career, Masterton exhibited the qualities for which the trophy is dedicated - This sounds like POV to me. Stating that he demostrated "the qualities of perseverance, sportsmanship, and dedication to ice hockey" is an opinion, not a fact. Should be put into a quote from the NHL. Done, add cite.
- Due to the nature of the award, no player has ever won it more than once seems redundant, after you have already stated in the lead that A player can win this trophy only once in his career.
  - A lead is a bit repetitive, according to my interpretation of WP:LEAD.
    - This has nothing to do with the lead being repetitive, it has to do with restating a statement after you've already said it five sentences ago. However, as a lead should be a summary of an article, I will drop this point, since it can be taken that the sentence in the lead, while located directly above its counterpart, is a summary of the respective statement. Raime 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~You should remove the wikilinks to the hockey players' and NHL seasons' Wikipedia articles that are found in the image captions. This is overlinking, as they are already clearly linked in the list.~~ Done
- ~~Some entries have punctuation, others do not. Either use periods throughout, or not at all.~~ Done
- ~~I think you should use:~~
  - Player is still active
    rather than {

Support - I can now finally say that I think this is completely ready to be a Featured list. It has seen a lot of significant improvements - Great job, Maxim. Raime 01:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, I did have these final concerns:
- Lanny McDonald - Presented for his dedication, as he was traded around the league numerous times, and when he came to the Flames, he had 66 goals and 32 assists for 98 points needs to be rephraswed. It is jumbled and wordy in its current form. Also, Maxim, you may wany to explain and add a relevant link relating to the statement that "The constant changing of teams affects a players ability to play with a team, and to feel part of a team". Without a relevant, NPOV link, the information about him being traded around could be confusing to readers. Raime 01:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Clarified Raime 02:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Ed Westfall - Why is anything about him never being a "superstar" mentioned? If this relevant?~~ Done Raime 01:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've addressed all these concerns except for the constant team changing part. I think I can find some source, but it will be a bit hard to integrate with the list. I hate to say this so bluntly, but it's very accepted in hockey circles that frequent changing of team messes up chemistry; every time there's a trade at the deadline, all the radio shows talk about is team chemistry. Maxim_(talk) 02:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if it is very accepted in hockey, then no reference is needed, beacuse it is accepted as "general common knowledge" per Wikipedia:When to cite/When a source may not be needed/Subject-specific common knowledge. Thanks for the clarification. Raime 02:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks good, well sourced, seems pretty good to me. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well sourced list and the page looks good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good looking list. --Golbez 21:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]